It used to be an SEO technique, to make sure that the important parts of a page rendered without javascript. I think the Google is now running javascript in its spider, so that is less of a factor now.
Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
31–40 of 63 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#32It used to be an SEO technique, to make sure that the important parts of a page rendered without javascript. I think the Google is now running javascript in its spider, so that is less of a factor now.
Well that Google can index non-gracefully degrading sites is ok. How Google wants to rank these sites is an other interesting question.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#33>>> every website should have 'text only' version which can be opened in CLI browser like Links.
every website has a target audience and it simply doesn't make sense to spend time and effort for this support. It's just not worth it.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#34To me, it seems almost as if the web dev is saying "if you don't have the latest, most up-to-date, most powerful device/whatever, then we don't want you looking at our ads". Seriously? I thought the idea of advertising was to get as many eyeballs as possible. That way of thinking seems so counter-productive to me, plus I can't imagine the advertiser being very happy with that approach. Thinking back to my days workin…
That's not the case when supporting IE < 10.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#35Yes, this very much annoys me.
It's not text-only versions we need, but sensible use of progressive enhancement. I'm totally fine with 'web apps' requiring Javascript and CSS (but please, at least give me a message to that effect, and don't leave me with an infinite spinner!) but simple web pages are increasingly broken without scripting.
It's frustrating, because it's not like progressive enhancement is hard, either.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#36Older Opera browser versions (and Firefox/Chrome with plugins) allow you to deactivate CSS. Then you see the website as you want it.
That's still a built-in Firefox feature: View->Page Style->No Style. The same menu will also let you choose between different "alternate style sheets" for the same site. (I think it may even be sticky, per-page or per-site.) Just for example, you could try it out here: http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/Lagrange.ht...
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#37It used to be an SEO technique, to make sure that the important parts of a page rendered without javascript. I think the Google is now running javascript in its spider, so that is less of a factor now.
Page load performance is actually one of Google's top signals for ranking nowadays.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#38To answer that, you have to ask yourself why somebody would not want to create an abstraction between content and presentation for their website. It's a basic aspect of modern web design, and even when it gets implemented, it's only ever used to present in one way. Why would someone do that? I'm sure there are a multitude of answers, the most basic of which is "they didn't feel like it." They probably didn't feel like it because they didn't think their efforts would be rewarded, or it wasn't personally fulfilling to them.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#39Because the business case isn't there, in terms of the cost/benefit. It's a lot of work (maybe not initially, but maintaining that functionality on an ongoing basis slows development), to support a tiny number of users, who you can't make any money advertising to (if you're ad-supported) and who are probably not the kind of users who buy much (if you sell directly).
The sad bit about this attitude is that some of us consider web design/development to be a craft, rather than purely an exercise in profit-maximisation. We should be creating the very best work that we can, not just aiming for what's good enough, then stopping. That's just an opinion; I realise it's unpopular with some.
Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?
#40Because the business case isn't there, in terms of the cost/benefit. It's a lot of work (maybe not initially, but maintaining that functionality on an ongoing basis slows development), to support a tiny number of users, who you can't make any money advertising to (if you're ad-supported) and who are probably not the kind of users who buy much (if you sell directly).
The sad bit about this attitude is that some of us consider web design/development to be a craft, rather than purely an exercise in profit-maximisation. We should be creating the very best work that we can, not just aiming for what's good enough, then stopping. That's just an opinion; I realise it's unpopular with some.
It is not unpopular. It is unrealistic.